Talk:Pierre Trudeau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada
 This article is part of WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Politics in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] NPOV

This article is very much tooled to be liberal friendly. It is not neutral in its point of view.

{{npov}}

Please, be more specific in your complaints and wait for responses before putting the box up. I don't understand why you would think of it as "Very much tooled to be "liberal friendly". Mentioned many times are the economic troubles, the Western alienation, the Quebec attitude towards him.Habsfannova 18:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Agreed, this article is very neutral & the above comment ("tooled") is silly.

[edit] Rule

"ending his 16-year rule of Canada." Is anyone else opposed to the use of the term "rule" here or was the author trying to be clever?

A.D. Heidelberg, Oct 28. 2005

[edit] Pic

Can someone please find a picture of him when he was Prime Minister? The old-man look gives a very different impression of his time in office.Arctic.gnome 08:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conscription

Changed the sentence in the beginning that stated the draft sent many men to war, while Trudeau avoided it. This was completely inaccurate, the Canadian draft was instituted in 1940 and was known as the National Resources Mobilization Act, and did not send men to war. Only volunteers saw combat service, while conscripts such as Trudeau saw duty in Canada with the home guard. By 1944, facing a manpower shortage due to the situation in Europe, some conscripts were sent for combat during the Conscription Crisis of 1944 but few actually saw combat and even fewer were killed. As mentioned in my edit, Trudeau was willing to get involved in the war but felt doing so would betray Quebec. So I hope the edit Isn't going to cause much controversy. mhunter

What you said is misleading. Thousands of Canadians were drafted and went overseas, and many died in the brutal fighting near the end of the war in Europe. The text you left, is clearly written by a Trudeau fan. It reflects, how most Canadians know more about George W Bush's war record, than their own Trudeau. At the moment, I have no interest in a revert war. I won't trade one POV with another. The honorable thing is to remove your misleading edits. Sadly, there are some topics which Canadians can not have an honest discussion about. --rob 29 June 2005 10:16 (UTC)

Rob, I think you should provide some evidence for your accusatio that the edits are misleading. mhunter has provided a link to an article that makes it clear that Canadian conscripts were not sent to Europe until very late in 1944. I think an important part of an "honest discussion" is concrete evidence. Thanks. Ground Zero

OK, I have come back to make a slight improvement. I mentioned *some* conscripts, drafted *later* were sent overseas. Also, the assertion he was willing to take part in the war, was changed to state "he said" he was silling. We don't know if he actually was willing. People can read his actions and his words, and decide for themselves, what was in his mind, if they wish. This article still has a pro-Trudeau slant in this section. But, hopefully it's better now. --rob 21:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LSE

Did Trudeau go to the LSE? It says he did on the LSE page, but I've never heard that before. If he did, what did he study? When did he attend?

Yes he did go to the LSE in the late 40's and studied under a Fabian professor whose name currently escapes me. Trudeau's socialist leanings came in large part from his time there and in Paris.Benw

[edit] Other

What Canadian institutions are named for Pierre Trudeau, as the article states? I am not implying that there aren't any. I'd just like to know.Jfitzg

Since I didn't get an answer, and since I still don't know that the statement "However, a great many institutions, streets, and the like in Canada are named for Mr. Trudeau" is true, I have deleted it from the main article and left it here until someone can provide "a great many" examples of institutions and streets named for Mr. Trudeau. To my mind (which may be wrong) one of the striking characteristics of the outpouring of grief over Mr. Trudeau's death was its failure to result in any significant effort to commemorate him. As I recall, the amount of money donated to his foundation immediately after his death was small. .JF

[edit] Charter of Rights & Freedoms

I qualified a couple of the statements about the Charter because they seem POV to me. The effects of the Charter are not universally considered to be profound, nor is it universally considered a valuable institution. Some POV from me: Canada still has double jeopardy (a conviction was even reinstated in a Charter case after reversal on appeal) and its ridiculous libel laws (upheld in a Charter case). Striking those down would constitute profound effects. And the Charter was so well written the Supreme Court was able to rule it doesn't apply to the common law. Trontonian aka Jfitzg

I added these points to the paragraph about PET's failures. What is needed to balance it is some facts about just how many Canadians consider Mr. Trudeau a great leader and some examples of advances in civil rights due to the Charter. Obviously there have been some, or even many, and a list would allow readers to make up their own minds about what is likely to be Mr. Trudeau's most important achievement. Trontonian 00:28, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that the Charter is purely symbolic and did nothing to advance personal freedoms, since Canadians have always had political rights. Vancouverguy 00:20, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That's a good null hypothesis, eh? Perhaps someone can attempt to disprove it. The Charter may actually have restricted personal freedom -- for example, through the Supreme Court's extremely lenient decisions about what constitutes a reasonable limit on rights -- which would make it more than symbolic. The decisions I'm thinkin of are the decisions on soliciting (the possibility that traffic might be slowed down constitutes a reasonable limit) and early retirement (the possibility that human resource departments might be inconvenienced constitutes a reasonable limit). Trontonian 16:52, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
That's an odd comment, Vancouverguy, and I can't tell if you're being serious, or merely playing devil's advocate. At the very least, I would suggest that there are thousands of gay Canadians who would dispute your statement. The issue here is not "political rights," but human rights writ large. Canadians have not always had the basic rights guaranteed in the Charter. Deleting Unnecessary Words 18:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean by "guaranteed"? The notwithstanding clause seems to subvert the whole idea of a guarantee. As does a Supreme Court willing to implement unreasonable definitions of reasonable limits. John FitzGerald aka Trontonian 21:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Trontonian, I understand your point, but don't see how it relates to the larger discussion. Are you agreeing with Vancouverguy that the Charter is "purely symbolic" and has "done nothing to advance personal freedoms"? Deleting Unnecessary Words 16:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, I'm saying it's largely symbolic and has done little to advance personal freedoms. The relevance of my argument to the larger discussion seems clear to me, but just in case I'll note that rights that can be eliminated for specified renewable terms at the whim of government are not rights, and neither are rights which can be suspended because their exercise interferes with the convenience of personnel departments. For example, one of the beneficial effects of the Charter has been the clarification of aboriginal rights, which allowed, for example, the Métis of Ontario to obtain hunting rights. However, these newly won rights could be suspended at any time by any government or any court which considers suspension expedient. And rights which do not exist in common law aren't rights either. John FitzGerald 17:46, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So we agree on the subject of this string. We both believe that Vancouverguy is off base when he says that the Charter is "purely symbolic" and has "done nothing to advance personal freedoms," right? Deleting Unnecessary Words 19:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, we don't agree. I said Vancouverguy's assertion was a good null hypothesis, which to me implies that it's not off base. I find it more helpful in discussing the issue than assertions that Canadians have guaranteed rights, for example. I'm also sure that people from Vancouver, like everyone else, often use exaggeration (the word "guaranteed" comes to mind) as a rhetorical device. What would be more helpful than us sitting around demonizing each other, though, would be developing an accounting of the beneficial and disadvantageous results of the Charter. That could even be a joint effort of the pros and antis, and more helpful than the sniping which has gone on about the Charter so far. I mean, I'm sure we're all well-meaning people. John FitzGerald 20:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To ask if someone is playing devil's advocate is to question whether they are provoking "argument or discussion by supporting the opposite side," to borrow a phrase from the Oxford English Dictionary. It is not, in any way, about "demonizing" the other person. Deleting Unnecessary Words 01:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A devil's advocate is not about demonizing? I suppose strictly speaking he's not, but his purpose is to show that someone is not in heaven, which is pretty close. Anyway, what about that constructive suggestion of mine? I leave it in your hands, since I have once again officially abandoned this enterprise. John FitzGerald
No, a devil's advocate is not about demonizing. If you doubt the definition I give above, please look it up in a dictionary or on Wikipedia. Nothing I said demonized another contributor. In fact, my suggestion that Vancouverguy was playing "devil's advocate" and yours that he was advancing a "null hypothesis" are remarkably similar in meaning. Think about it. Deleting Unnecessary Words 18:40, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Think about this – you are obsessing about individual words and ignoring a perfectly sensible suggestion I made for resolving this dispute. There's a word for that. And I suggest you look up the origin of "devil's advocate," then come back and see if you can tell me I was wrong. The role of the advocatus diaboli is to show that a candidate for sainthood is not saintly. I replied in what I thought was the spirit of the exchange, but apparently some people have the idea that the spirit is to solidify one's conception of one's own self-righteousness. And you can have the last word because I don't see that this exchange is going anywhere. I know what the reply will be, anyway – "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right." John FitzGerald

Please. You falsely accused me of acting in bad faith. I clarified my intentions, but rather than apologize, you continued to attack me. There can be no discussion of substantive issues so long as you continue with this approach to discussion. If you look back, you'll see that much of my contribution has been in the form of questions. I don't always know the answers, so I'd like others to explain their points of view to help me decide my own mind. I would also like them to abstain from personal attacks. Deleting Unnecessary Words 02:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
answered at User talk:Deleting Unnecessary Words John FitzGerald
And, I hope, case closed at the same location. Deleting Unnecessary Words 18:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've asked User:Kchishol1970 for the reasons he deleted my remarks about double jeopardy and the presumption of guilt in libel cases as "blatantly right-wing POV". If I don't hear any they're going back in. I don't think there's any dispute that these are restrictions on civil liberties, and I'm unaware of any right-wingers who are upset by them. Trontonian 22:56, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I restored the points, but in the second last paragraph, where their (unjustifiably) contentious nature is more obvious. I also tried to balance the blatantly right-wing POV about the War Measures Act. Trontonian 14:49, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It turned out my balancing was more POV than the original, so I took it out. As I became more familiar with the article it occurred to me that it omitted some important policies of Mr. Trudeau's, so I added them.

Anyway, I would like to remind people that policy is not to omit POV material but to edit it. Trontonian 23:13, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Re: Aboriginal rights - section 25 of the Charter cannot be section 33ed, and many aboriginal rights are protected under section 35 of scehdule b of the Constitution Act anyway. Also Alberta has never used s. 33, it has only threatened to in an area it does not have jurisdiction, so i removed that bit. Also libel is generally a private matter, therefore not covered by the Charter, such statments against the government are sedition and any laws regarding sedition, which at one time i believe existed, are almost certianly unconstitutional and are likely not being applied by any governments for that reason. Also Re: Devil's Advocate - the purpose of the devil's advocate is to say someone may not be worthy of sainthood, not that they are not in heaven. A devils adovacte takes an opposing position to make sure that the arguments of the other side have been proven exahustivly. One final note, the Charter has become more then symbolic, it has clearly expanded rights beyond what politicians are willing to expand them, and s. 33 is almost the ultimate taboo in Canadian politics. Benw

[edit] Why I re-arranged the last paragraph

I rearranged the last paragraph so that the positive remarks were in the same place. I put the positive remarks last because that's generally the way to leave the most positive impression, and I don't want to sandbag the article to leave a negative impression (which is, on balance, the impression I have of Mr. Trudeau). Anyway, his final reputation will probably depend on events which have yet to occur. Trontonian 18:41, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think we should get a better picture, one of when he was younger, like when he was in power. dave 09:21, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just a comment:

There was certainly an outpouring of grief in Canada over Trudeau's death, but that feeling was considerably muted in Alberta.

I'm a Yank, but I can speak to this with some authority. On the day Trudeau died, I was in the middle of a month-long work assignment near Red Deer, and I stayed in a Red Deer motel. I saw modest sorrow at the chemical plant I was working at, but it was VERY far from the kind of grief I was seeing on my TV. I likened the reaction I saw on TV to that around Princess Diana's death. Even more interesting was seeing Canadian flags around Red Deer. While flags in front of federal offices were all at half staff, most other flags around the city were never lowered. Dale Arnett 08:53, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Trudeau made wide array of contributions and I believe that their pretty important because if he didnt bring about those changes, we would probably be far worse. We wouldnt have those rights and freedoms we now have and we still wouldnt be able to change our laws.

[edit] Trudeau salute

The finger article says showing the middle finger is called the "Trudeau salute" in Canada. Why's this so ? I didn't find a mention of this in this article. Jay 11:42, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because of a famous photo of him giving the finger to some protesters. He was well known for telling people what he thought of them. I would rather see that photo, the 'walk in the snow' photo, the canoe photo, or one of the rock star groupie photos used as an portrait, as they're much more representive of him. jericho4.0 00:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've copied over your explanation to that article. Are there any external links to the famous photo ? Jay 10:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't say that I've heard it called the "Trudeau salute" very often, it get's mentioned now and then, but I can't say I've heard alot of people walking aroung calling it that. Benw

It's just a gesture to duplicate his "fuddle duddle". Who can ask for anything more?

Takima 22:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double jeopardy

I see my comment about double jeopardy was removed because the Charter says that someone finally acquitted is not subject to further prosecution. The loophole is finally – i. e., by the Supreme Court. The Crown still appeals acquittals. If you remember Guy-Paul Morin, his acquittal was appealed long after the Charter came into effect, and he was convicted at his second trial (even though everyone in the country who wasn't on the jury knew he was innocent, including the guys he was in prison with). Anyway, I put the point back in. John FitzGerald 22:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The assertion that there are only a few circumstances in which double jeopardy applies is misleading – people are getting sentenced to life imprisonment on re-trial, so the issue is scarcely as trivial as the assertion implies – so I modified it. The only improvement I can think of concerning double jeopardy is the ruling that a conviction can no longer be substituted for an acquittal; I'll see if i can find out if that was a charter case.

And it's a fact that opinion is still sharply divided about the value of the Charter. One thing not mentioned here is the opinion that it has been most beneficial to corporations. John FitzGerald 13:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Substitution of a conviction was outlawed by parliament in 1975, so that pretty well defines how far PET was willing to go. John FitzGerald 13:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Help

One of the things I believe distinguished Mr. Trudeau from his successors is that he was the last PM to take Canada seriously. Everyone since has acted as if Canada is a dependency of the US. I cannot, however, think of a non-POV way to introduce that point. If anyone else can I'd appreciate their adding it. John FitzGerald 13:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You could say, perhaps, that he was strong nationalist, amd enacted many measures designed to make Canada less dependent on the USA rather than more so, as has been the fashion in the last couple of decades.

Peregrine981 18:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks. The point's already made about his nationalistic policies, so only a small addition is required. I'll sleep on it before making a change, though. John FitzGerald
You would have to be very careful in how you describe Trudeau as a nationalist. He built his academic and political careers on his opposition to the concept of nationalism and never used the word "nationalist" to describe himself. HistoryBA 23:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right – he certainly wasn't a nationalist in the sense in which the term was used when he was PM, and the nationalists of his day certainly didn't think he was a nationalist. It's only by comparison with his neoconservative and neoliberal successors that his efforts to make Canada more independent seem nationalistic. There's probably a way to word this properly, but I'll have to think about it some more. John FitzGerald 00:06, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Striking down the Constitution

Since the Supreme Court can't strike down the Constitution, it can't strike down the provisions of the Charter. So I took that observation out. And with that I wash my hands of this article. History is largely myth, anyway, so I'm giving up fighting against the transformation of the complex, contradictory and...human political figure that Pierre Trudeau was into a two-dimensional political "hero". Even if the status of hero was clearly something that Mr. Trudeau was uninterested in. John FitzGerald 13:04, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I tried to reword the preceding so it was less offensive. Not that anyone should have been offended, I suppose, but then I'm a Canadian. I took out all the stuff about the difference between current and past politics because it occurred to me that a more likely source of the problem is a phenomenon that happened during Mr. Trudeau's life – his supporters seemed to be deifying him in response to the absurd demonization of him by his opponents. Still not a valuable approach to one of the more imprtant figures of our time. John FitzGerald 15:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I hadn't looked at this article since making the preceding observation in August 2004. It seems to provide a much better idea of Mr. Trudeau now, so my thanks to all who persevered. John FitzGerald 13:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Word War II record

I would like to ask anyone with relevent knowledge to add something about Trudeau regarding WWII. He was born in 1919, so he was about 20 during the outbreak of the war. This is by far the biggest event in his life prior to being prime minister. For most Canadians that old, it's the biggest event ever.

I understand he, like most franchophone Quebecers, opposed the war. He could have served in oombat as an officer if he chose. He didn't. Why? Was he interviewed about this? What exactly was his stand on the war? Did he ever change it? He, as PM, went to many memorial services for WWII. Did the issue never come up.

As a comparison, I can't imagine ommitting George W. Bush's Vietnam record. W's war record is always mentioned in light of the War on Terror. For instance, why send troops to combat, when he didn't go himself. So, I would have thought Trudeau's WWII record would be brought up relative to his use of the War Measures Act. For instance, why was the kidnapping of two people grounds for the War Measures Act, but Germany's conquest of Europe not.

You may disagree with my point-of-view (which is fine), but I think somebody should at least say something factual about this time period in Trudeau's life. I didn't put in anything myself (on this specific topic), because I don't pretend to have the confirmed facts. I was born in Canada 34 years ago, and never heard anything of signficance of on this, from school or in the media (and I have heard and read *lots* of stuff about Trudeau).

Trudeau wasn't necessarily against the war, but in solidarity with Quebec he was against consciption and during the war campaigned for anti-consciptionist Quebec politician Jean Drapeau, saying in a speech "I had been taught to keep away from imperialistic wars".
In addition, I think the little sentence in the introduction that states "This allowed him to avoid being sent into combat, despite a draft, which forced many men his age to go to war." is categorically untrue. Although there was a draft insitituted in Canada, only volunteer soldiers were sent into combat (I've heard Canada fielded the largest 100% volunteer army during WWII), while draftees such as Trudeau guarded the home front, unlike the Americans which used large numbers of conscripts in combat (Eddie Slovik). Late in the war a handful of draftees did eventually get sent to Europe due to increasing casualties but saw very little actual combat before the end of the war. So the statement that many men were forced to go to war in Canada is essentially false and should be changed. In addition, Trudeau was actually booted out of the Officers Corps due to lack of discipline. For the most part Trudeau spent the war years at the University of Montreal, riding his Harley to school. mhunter

mhunter is incorrect; several thousand Canadian conscripts (not a handful) went into combat in 1945. They also went to the Aleutians in 1943 but the Japanese had fled. Were the Japanese to be found there, the conscripted Canadians of the 13th Brigade was fully expected to fight there. Michael Dorosh 19:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better Picture?

I'm not a fan of the picture being used...I don't think it's very represetnative of who he was during his tenure. Would a replacement likeThis be better, do you think? I'm not sure about the whole copywrrite status of pictures, so just posting what I think Habsfannova 06:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

What about this one? http://ns5.onthespothosting.net/~rulers/trude.jpg Except it's too small. :-S -- Earl Andrew - talk 09:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

---This one is nice, also, albiet small. http://66.84.54.31/images/photos/pierre_trudeau.jpg I just think something from his early era would be preferable. My favourites will always be this one and this oneHabsfannova 17:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

He's certainly pimping his stuff in the second photo! ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Someone really should get around to changing it. I don't think the image of Pierre in his old age does him justice. -Arctic.gnome 19:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I changed it a bit back to his official archives one, but an anonymous user kept changing it back because it wasn't "in colour", so I didn't bother again. If you can find one of his youth that's able to be put up, just point us in the direction.Habsfannova 20:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I reccomend this one, it's on the CBC's Greatest Canadian site, I don't know copyright, however. http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/media/hires/Great_PE_Trudeau_mandatory_credit.jpg Habsfannova 20:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Found the one I posted up on the archives...thought it captured him better. The one from 1971 is still on the page too...Habsfannova 00:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that, I'll remove it...if anyone finds a better space for it, I'd welcome them to put it in.Habsfannova 03:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be the trend that pictures of the Prime Ministers are in black and white. Should this be the case? If not, I would recommend this photo of Trudeau. http://www.clevernet.net/pierre_trudeau/images/trud.jpg He is pictured with his rose.Mr.Wizard 22:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC
That one's nice, if we could find a better quality version...Habsfannova 23:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Intellectual

I'm sure some will contest this, but I assert there's no basis for using this term for him. Sure, he was smart and well read. So, were lots of people, not called intellectuals. Who decides which poltical activist gets called an intellectual? I sort of see the use of this term if a professor, researcher, or scientist; strolls into public affairs; after establishing a substantial reputation as an "intellectual", with recognition across the politcal spectrum. Trudeau really didn't have this, in the beginning (which is where the text I removed was located). Finally, I would compare to Stephen Harper, who did a lot of what "early Trudeau" did (organize/fight NEP, apprentice with candidate, organize/research/run non-partisan political action group), but was never called an intellectual, is not in his article. --rob 12:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Trudeau earned his bones in the intellectual community before he entered politics. He had been a professor and was a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, an honour reserved for the scholars of the highest rank. HistoryBA 23:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, fair points. I suggest you put both facts in the article, with dates and footnotes. Suprisingly, this article, mentions neither fact, but finds space to talk about his girlfriends. I just found/read an article about him being a professor, but it didn't mention the full time period. So, since it's sounds like you know, hopefully you can do an edit. Thanks. --rob 00:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

His girlfriends (Who were contemporary celebrities) were an important indicator of how different of a person he was from the contemporary Canadian political class. He was, in essence, a celebrity. Habsfannova 05:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a section being added below about his personal life, and girlfriends. I did remove the listing of the names. I mistakenly forgot to put a "change description". Really, if this is important, there should be a section about it. I frankly objected, to the fact, that the reader learns the names of his girlfriends, but didn't even know he was a professor. Surely, there are priorities here. The top of the article has to quickly say what the man was. The names of his girlfriends do nothing. --rob 17:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The "Early Life and Career" section should mention him being an "Associate Professor" 1961-1965[1]. --rob 17:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography?

This article ought to have a bibliography. Surely Trudeau wrote something besides his own memoirs? 121a0012 03:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right about this. The problem is that he wrote and co-authored a great many books and articles. I will try to compile a list. I'm not sure if they can all be included, though. Sunray 22:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unification of the Canadian Forces

The following paragraph was added to the Legacy section of the article:

Unification of the Armed Forces, while planned prior to his election as Prime Minister, was implemented during his government. The three distinctive services (Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and Royal Canadian Air Force) were merged into one service, a move many analysts and certainly most serving service personnel at the time felt was destructive and harmful to traditions, morale, and the prestige of the armed forces.

It seems questionable to view the unification of the Canadian Forces as part of Trudeau's legacy. The die was cast for unification during the Pearson government, between 1964 and 1968. The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act was passed in February, 1968; Trudeau became prime minister in April, 1968. Here are the milestones for unification:

  • Unification originated as a white paper of the Pearson government in 1964. The man generally considered responsible for unification was the defence minister in Pearson's cabinet, Paul Hellyer.
  • On June 7, 1965, navy, army and air force commands were replaced by six functional commands.
  • On May 1, 1966 camps, stations and the navy's land-based installations became Canadian Forces Bases. Training schools and the pay system were unified.
  • On November 4 1966, Bill C-243, "The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act," was introduced in parliament. The Bill was given third and final reading in April 1967 and became law on February 1, 1968 amending the National Defence Act and making the army, navy and air force one.[2]
  • Hellyer was transport minister in the first Trudeau cabinet, but resigned in 1969 over a dispute with Trudeau.

It is true that the Trudeau government proceeded with unification. To undo what had already been done would have been a disastrous climb-down for the Liberals. Although Trudeau's defence policies diverged sharply from those of Hellyer, defence was never one of his priorities. Given the foregoing, I'm removing the paragraph from the article. If anyone thinks it should be back in, please explain, with cites, here. Sunray 09:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Walk in the snow

Hi:

The article calls it famous. Granted, it's become part of the Canadian political lexicon and it has since been parodied by Canadian politcal comedians but people outside Canada may never have heard of it.

I agree. It's famous only to Canadian political junkies. HistoryBA 01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy

I've cleaned up some redundant material in the Legacy section, and moved some up to the section about his tenure...I think that some of the Constitutional and Bilingualism "legacy" sections should be moved to their specific articles. Any ideas?Habsfannova 04:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Your approach makes sense to me. Sunray 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

I switched the content from Pierre Trudeau to Pierre Elliot Trudeau, then redirected Pierre Trudeau to Pierre Elliot Trudeau. To Canadians, and even those outside of Canada, when PM Trudeau is refer to, they refer to him as Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Google Pierre Trudeau, and a lot of links that came up refer to him as Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Google Pierre Elliot Trudeau, and only one refer to him as Pierre Trudeau. I know it was a media habit at his time too, as there was a comment about how Pierre Elliot Trudeau is like a sports star because people always say his name in full, well, Pierre Elliot Trudeau still isn't his FULL name, but not just first and last. - T'Sura [February 6th, 2006. 11:24a.m. Eastern]

Why didn't you say anything about this beforehand? You definatly should have posted the suggestion then allowed a day or two for debate. I'm personally against. Allan MacEachen was usually always referred to with the "J.", but we don't title article like that.Habsfannova 16:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware this was still being closely followed so I didn't know how long I have to wait, and I remember Pierre Elliot Trudeau being the original it was under before it was redirected. So, debate? My points is as stated above, and one other agrees with me. I'll give it a few days, than I'm changing it to Pierre Elliot Trudeau unless there is a better point. "J" was a nickname. Whereas Pierre Elliot Trudeau is his proper name, parts out of his whole name, and hey, first name, middle name, last name. The Elliot is English, and the Pierre is French, and it's kinda symbolic that Trudeau is both, hence why everyone then used Pierre Elliot Trudeau. - - T'Sura [February 7th, 2006. 7:03p.m. Eastern]

The use of "PET" as an acronym or shorthand when referring to him is also common, so the change does seem to make sense.Michael Dorosh 18:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what you decide, the name is Elliott, with two Ts, not Elliot. HistoryBA 00:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
"J." was not a nickname, it was his middle initial. And the reason everyone started using "Elliott Trudeau" was because some newspapers in Montreal wanted to brand him as a half-anglo outsider, not because of some mythic "symbolism."Habsfannova 00:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Good Article"

Right on guys! Let's keep going, I guess.Habsfannova 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Since when was Canada's economy perfect with him

funny how there's not much on him putting Canada into debt. Just one line

Check out the "Legacy" section:

Some people consider Trudeau's economic policies to have been a weak point. Inflation and unemployment marred much of his term. When Trudeau took office in 1968 Canada had a debt of $18 billion, when he left office in 1984, that debt stood at $200 billion - an increase of 1100%. The debt overhang in particular is one that Canada is still dealing with, as interest payments eat up a substantial chunk of annual federal spending. However, these trends were present in most western countries at the time including the United States. It is also noteworthy that during this period Canada vaulted to the top of the world in terms of UN indices measuring Human Development and Quality of Life, though the terms of those indices and the weight they assigned to spending itself remain controversial.

Also mentioned are MacEachen's budgets in the 80s section, and the economy and debt in the 70s section. Any other complaints?Habsfannova 03:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal life / Deborah Coyne

Shouldn't there be some more on his personal life. In particular, how did Deborah Coyne feature - a long-term girlfriend or a short fling ?

I say we only include it if it is relevant to his public life. HistoryBA 15:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of arms

The personal arms of the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau may be found here: http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/t/trudeau.jpg with details here : http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/t/trudeau.htm. Maybe this could be information that can be used on the site. user:ctjj.stevenson

[edit] Trudeau the separatist

Someone should add a section about these facts as quoted directly from the Globe and Mail:

"In his 20s, Mr. Trudeau wanted to see the creation of an independent Quebec solely for French Canadians...In the 1930s, Mr. Trudeau appeared to embrace the kind of narrow ethnic nationalism that he later scorned, favouring the creation of an independent Quebec that was French and Catholic.

Mr. Trudeau was still promoting the idea in 1942, when he joined a "secret" revolutionary group plotting to form an ethnic-based country, the book reveals.

The book, written by two Trudeau admirers, Max and Monique Nemni, says he was influenced by the conservative, church-dominated intellectual currents of Quebec in the 1930s and 1940s. It says that despite his lifelong image as a rebel and contrarian, he didn't resist the day's pro-fascist views.

"Mr. Trudeau undoubtedly overcame his past, but we have every reason to believe that he never acknowledged it," the authors write.

People involved in producing the book say Mr. Trudeau's beliefs at that time have been unknown until now, even to his children and friends. The authors had access to his personal papers that became available after his death.

The authors admit to being troubled by their findings, but say they wanted to shed light on a critical period in Mr. Trudeau's intellectual development." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060407.wxtrudeau07/BNStory/National/

[edit] Young Trudeau

We should include some material from the new Young Trudeau book about his involvement in Jesuit-inspired Quebec nationalist causes as a youth.

[quote][http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060408.TRUDEAU08/TPStory/ Closest friends surprised by Trudeau revelations Many didn't know extent of former PM's involvement in elitist organization]

HUGH WINSOR Special to The Globe and Mail

OTTAWA -- Some of Pierre Trudeau's closest friends were not aware of the extent of the former prime minister's involvement in a fascist-type secret organization in the 1940s until the publication of a book this week, but his participation was a reflection of the dominant intellectual currents in Quebec Roman Catholic circles at the time.

One of the closest of those friends, Marc Lalonde, who was part of the Quebec nationalist ferment along with Mr. Trudeau when both were in their youth, and subsequently one of the pillars in the Trudeau cabinets, said yesterday he was not aware of the organization described in Young Trudeau: 1919-1944, Son of Quebec, Father of Canada until he read the book.

But he was not surprised: "Quite obviously, it was a very small group led by a couple of Jesuit priests," he said yesterday, but it was fostered in a climate of church-led Quebec nationalism that was quite widespread, especially among the intellectual elites produced by the classical colleges in the 1930s and 1940s.

Mr. Lalonde said the book's authors, Max and Monique Nemni (who were also editors of the briefly revived Cité Libre, a magazine that Mr. Trudeau co-founded) have done their homework, had access to all of the documents and have provided an accurate picture of the times.

As a young man, Mr. Trudeau was very much influenced by the Roman Catholic Church, which at that time was very inward-looking and nationalist, Mr. Lalonde said. "They talked about creating La Laurencie [a Laurentian nation] that would be very Catholic, very French and very corporatist. They talked about a kind of perpetual revolution that went beyond the Trotsky notion of revolution," he added.

Although a decade younger than Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Lalonde was also involved in the dialogue, even though he and former Le Devoir editor and Quebec provincial Liberal leader Claude Ryan attended less elitist classical colleges than College Brebeuf, where Mr. Trudeau studied.

"Fundamentally, Trudeau was very much reflecting the mood of those days, very anti-conscription, and he teamed up with André Laurendeau and Jean Drapeau to fight against conscription.

"They had a very elitist conception of society. When you read the book, it makes you smile at the naiveté of it, but it was also frightening."

The structure of society they were advocating was essentially fascist with an elite, an integrated structure and a very strong leader.

Mr. Lalonde said the Portuguese and Spanish dictators were seen as models, as was Vichy France leader Marshal Pétain.

The Pierre Trudeau that Canadians came to know -- intellectual rebel, anti-establishment fighter on behalf of unions and promoter of religious freedom -- was a product of his experiences when he got out of Quebec and away from the Jesuit influence.

He studied French philosophers Jacques Maritan and Emanuel Munier, who supported a left-wing form of Catholicism and an emphasis on individual rights. He was also influenced by the British philosophers Locke and Hume when he studied in London.

Toronto lawyer Michael Levine, a friend of the Trudeau family in later years (and Mr. Trudeau's lawyer), said he had discussions with the Trudeau children about this period, especially Sacha, and they have written it off to youthful indiscretion that his humanist record in adult life has more than made up for.[/quote] Homey 15:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What Homagetocatalonia has added is probably enough.Habsfan|t 16:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important question

What I really want to know is how tall was he? 142.231.110.50 20:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about exact figures, but not very.Habsfan|t 21:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
He looks tall. I like your flag. 142.231.110.50 23:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Check out the image on the bottom of Prime Minister of Canada to compare his height with other PMs...I'll try and see what his height was in a few of my sources...thanks for the compliment, btw.Habsfan|t 03:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Should the two disambiguation pages be merged into one? At the moment, we have the following text at the top of the article, which seems somewhat strange:

   "Trudeau" redirects here. For other uses, see Trudeau (disambiguation).
   For other uses of the term, see Pierre Elliott Trudeau (disambiguation).

Some articles are shared between both. Others appear on one but not the other. --Stephane Charette 00:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seperatist, Anti-Semite and Fascist?

Unless I was stoned that day, I'm pretty sure that there was a big stink in the Canadian news in which it was revealed that Trudeau was actually a seperatist. Apparently his butler published all of Trudeau's diaries that were kept secret for so many years. I can't seem to find confirmation on that, though, although I did find lots about Trudeau's past: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=0c1b3dca-544a-45d8-8ce3-f577f9cb43a6&p=1

This stuff should definitely be included in this article. Then maybe no-one will worry about this being too Liberal of an article, hehe.

[edit] Aargh! Scary red text!

What is this? Someone fix it please!!

[edit] Birthplace

Every source I've read says he was born in Montreal, yet this article claims he was born in "Whitehorse" (Yukon?). I'm changing it back unless there's a birth record or other reliable source. ChildOfTheMoon83 00:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appointment of Justice Wilson

Hello Lonewolf BC. On the page for Pierre Trudeau, I had added a brief comment beside the listing of Madam Justice Bertha Wilson: "the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada." I added it because this was arguably Mr. Trudeau's most important Supreme Court of Canada appointment. At the very least, the appointment made history. You have seen the need, however, to delete this historical reference to (as you say) "trim needless information." I can't argue with your other edits of this section, but there are many people who would be interested in knowing that the Prime Minister took this (for 1982) unprecedented step to have a woman on the Canadian Supreme Court. I think Mr. Trudeau's made history here. Would you not agree that the phrase "the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada" could be added back to the Pierre Trudeau article, or do you maintain that it's needless information? Que-Can 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that, although it is somewhat of a distinction for Justice Wilson, it is a slight matter with respect to Trudeau. So I would expect it to see it get passing mention in her article (which it does), but no, I don't think this is the place for it. I don't think this appointment reflects much on Trudeau at all. I doubt that he chose Wilson for the purpose of appointing a woman, but assume that it was on her qualifications. The appointment was scarcely a radical step by 1982. Women in Law were old hat. Woman judges were old hat. Some had reached the heights where they were considerable for appointment to the Supreme Court. It so happened that Trudeau picked one. This has very little to do with Trudeau, who merely happened to be Prime Minister at the time. So I really think it does not belong in Trudeau's article, and that including it therein has false implications about the appointment. -- Lonewolf BC 20:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)(P.S. I shall copy this to the article's talk page, as the input of other editors might be helpful.) -- Lonewolf BC 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Lonewolf BC. Thank you for sharing your perspective on how the appointment of Justice Wilson may have been received by the public in 1982. I recall the appointment, and I thought at the time that it was significant to have a woman on the Supreme Court, but it would be interesting to review the media coverage at the time, and how historians view it now. Indeed, the decade from the mid-70s to the mid-80s was a time of historic firsts for women in Canadian public life: first woman Speaker in the Senate, first woman Speaker in the House of Commons, first woman on the Supreme Court, first woman Governor General ... and later, first woman Premier (1991, in B.C.) and first woman Prime Minister (1993). It may not have been a "radical step" by Mr. Trudeau to appoint Justice Wilson, but it was certainly long overdue to have a woman appointed that esteemed position. Que-Can 04:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have copied the above from my own talk page, and invite the input of other editors. Lonewolf BC 01:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be altogether clear about it, my central point is not really about how the appointment was received by the public. It is that whatever distinction the appointment has does not much attach to M. Trudeau. Granted, its reception by the public has a bearing on that: The appointment was not seen as particularly daring, surprising, socially avant-garde or controversial, on Trudeau's part. Certainly, it was a distinction for Wilson, and was perceived as milestone in the social advance of women, so it was not a trifling event, and attracted plenty of notice at the time. But, as is underscored by your examples of other female "firsts" in the era and your statement that "...it was certainly long overdue...", it was only part of a broad social current which Trudeau, at least in this instance, was merely following (if not somewhat lagging), rather than pushing or leading. -- Lonewolf BC 06:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court appointments

Okay, technically it is the Governor General who does the appointing, but that is a mere formality. PM chooses; G-G rubber-stamps the choice. The details of the process are not relevant to Trudeau, anyhow. The wording "chose ... for appointment" indicates well enough that he did not actually appoint them himself (in which case the natural wording would be simply "appointed"), and anything further is just off-topic hair-splitting in relation to Trudeau (or any other PM). -- Lonewolf BC 22:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether it's rarely used or not, the GG retains the right to dismiss the "choice" of the Prime Minister, and is able to discuss the nominees with the PM (advise, encourage and warn); in essence, it isn't always an automatic approval of the name the PM lays on the GG's desk. That the PM recommends or advises the Sovereign (or Governor General) is what's commonly accepted, not that the Queen or GG obediently follow diktats issued by some imperial prime minister.
"Chose... for appointment" may not assert that he makes the appointment, but why be vague and leave people wondering just who, then, does the appointing? --gbambino 22:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, whether it's rarely used or not, the GG retains the right...[etc.]
Yes, I know about the GG's theoretical powers in the matter, as do most educated Canadians, I suspect. I believe that "rarely" is an understatement, though: To my knowledge, no Canadian GG has ever baulked at a PM's choice. As said, in practice it is a mere rubber-stamping. But all of that is not, finally, the point.
"Chose... for appointment" may not assert... [etc.])
The point is that this is not an article about how Canadian Supreme Court Justices become such. It is an article about Pierre Trudeau. Thus, in the context, it does not matter "...just who... does the appointing". Trudeau's picks for the court are relevant to an article on Trudeau. Exactly how these picks were translated into memberships on the court is not. That stuff belongs (and may be found) in the article on the Supreme Court. I already chose wording that carefully avoids suggesting Trudeau made the appointments himself, as a compromise with anyone worried about this fine point.
With regard, now, to your edit-summaries:
  • "(Please point out what part of the constitution states that the Prime Minister appoints judges)"
  • "(Please stop removing correct and valid information)"
Firstly, please do not use edit-summaries for carrying on debate. That is not their purpose. The talk page is for that -- which is why I kept saying, "See talk".
Secondly, if you must use edit-summaries in that way, please at least make sure they are not misleading, as both of those are. Taking them in order:
  • I have never said, nor even implied, that the PM makes the appointments. On the contrary, I have consistently agreed that the PM does not, and I carefully chose wording that avoids suggesting he does.
  • The truthfulness of the information concerned is not the issue, as one might assume it was from reading that edit-summary. I am not saying it should be deleted from the article because it is wrong, which it is not, but because it is irrelevant to the subject of the article, which is Pierre Trudeau. -- Lonewolf BC 01:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Gbambino is correct, the GG appoints the Judges, by advice of the PM. GoodDay 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
That's beside the point, and I've not been saying otherwise, anyhow. -- Lonewolf BC 01:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not beside the point; I understand your argument. Should the GG refuse the PM's choice, there'd be constitional hell to pay. Canadians wouldn't want an appointed official blocking an elected official (see the King-Byng Affair). Yes the PM makes THE CHOICE, but THE CHOICE doesn't become THE APPOINTEE until the GG's consent (ie, the GG appoints/consents ,the PM advises/chooses). Personally I'd rather the GG office be abolished (but that discussion is best, for a blog page). Until you have a varifiable source, that states the PM not the GG appoints the Judges, your version shouldn't be added to the article. GoodDay 17:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The old article didn't say that he appointed them. The new version would be confusing and misleading to readers that are not informed about Canadian government. I think that it should be reverted to the old version. --JGGardiner 18:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is confusing about the PM recommending a name to the person who makes the appointment? That is how the Canadian government works. --gbambino 21:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The current version implies to an unfamiliar reader that the de facto power rests with the GG which is false. The GG only has certain powers. In a technical sense, sovereign power still actually rests with the sovereign: the vice-regal powers are only delegated at their pleasure. If you're concerned about our written constitution only you should remember that it doesn't even mention the office of Prime Minister. You should also remember that our constitution is partly (some say largely) unwritten. The new version says that he "recommended" which is only true in a certain sense. In that sentence, "recommended" is a kind of legal fiction which you know the actual meaning of but a non-Canadian wouldn't. A non-Canadian would read that in a literal sense and think that he merely gave an opinion. We can't assume that readers have the same familiarty with Canadian constitutional government that we do. --JGGardiner 21:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The current version, is used for all Prime Ministers of Canada articles (except Harper, who's yet to recommend judge appointmens). Furthermore, there's yet to be shown any varifiable sources that claim the PM makes appointments of Judges (neglecting the GG's role). Let me put it another way, If the GG doesn't appove the PM's choices, the nominees can't assume the seat on the Court. That's is the way it is, you can't change the facts. As for outsiders, I'd recommend some kinda foot-note, that the GG is compelled to accept the PM's nominees. GoodDay 23:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The Constitution states that Supreme Court appointments are to be made by the Governor-in-Council. So, while sovereignty rests with the Sovereign, the job of appointments has been specifically delegated to the GG, and in written form, not through convention. What is also written is that the GG may appoint people to the Queen's Privy Council to act as advisors; the PM, the first minister (and "minister" means "servant"), is a member of the QPC, and thus, in all reality, Trudeau's names were only a recommendation, or advice, if you will.
Of course, by convention, to adhere to democratic principals the PM's choice must almost always be adhered to, but, as I mentioned earlier, the GG retains the absolute right to dismiss the PM's choice, a right reserved for extreme situations, but still a demonstration that the "choice" is just a "recommendation." I'm not sure the reserve powers have ever been exercised in relation to a Supreme Court appointment, but they may have been (we just don't know), and they've certainly been used in other cases. So, "recommended" is always the term used when talking about the PM's advice to the GG; not forced, or demanded, or commanded.
In this case, however, we're talking specifically about Trudeau, and the names he, as prime minister, put forward to the Governor General for appointment to the Supreme Court, and which were accepted by the GG. So, even if they were technically recommendations to the GG, they were his choices, and so I can concede that "choice", "chose", or "chosen" can be used. But, I will maintain that it is necessary to mention that the Governor General makes the appointment, otherwise readers will be left wondering just why Trudeau made the choices in the first place. Both proposals also, I noticed, could lead one to wonder if his recommendations or choices were actually appointed, or whether they were just put forward and dismissed. So, I venture to propose the following compromise:
That's correct. This wording is an accuate discription, suggest you insert it in the articles of all PM's of Canada. GoodDay 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
That's certainly a fair compromise. Thanks for taking my concerns into consideration. --JGGardiner 10:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, then, I will insert this. --gbambino 19:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That might be jumping the gun a bit, considering that a main participant in this discussion (to wit, me) has yet to comment on your proposed, and now realised edit. I wish, now, that I had finished up those comments last night, but they shall appear here shortly. -- Lonewolf BC 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Submit for GA review?

What do regular editors of this article think? Is it ready for Good Article nomination?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/e/Talk%7EPierre_Trudeau_df1b.html"